A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has temporarily blocked a Department of Homeland Security policy requiring members of Congress to provide seven days’ advance notice before visiting immigration detention facilities.

U.S. District Judge Jia M. Cobb issued the order Monday, granting relief to 13 House lawmakers who sued the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement over the restrictions. The court found the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim and ordered a stay of the policy while litigation continues.

The dispute centers on a directive reinstated Jan. 8 by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem requiring lawmakers to give a week’s notice before entering detention facilities. Members of Congress argued the requirement conflicts with a longstanding appropriations provision, known as Section 527, which prohibits DHS from using federal funds to prevent lawmakers from conducting oversight visits and explicitly states that prior notice is not required.

In her ruling, Cobb wrote that DHS likely relied on its regular annual appropriations to create and implement the policy, making it subject to Section 527’s limitations. The administration contended the rule was funded through a separate 2025 spending package, referred to as the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which allocated billions of dollars for immigration enforcement and detention operations.

The court concluded, however, that the department could not simply shift implementation costs to the newer funding source because the statute restricts how those reconciliation funds may be used. Cobb emphasized that federal agencies must comply with spending limits imposed by Congress, writing that the “power of the purse rests with Congress.”

Lawmakers who brought the lawsuit said the notice requirement interfered with their ability to conduct timely oversight of detention conditions and enforcement practices. The judge agreed that forcing advance notice could cause irreparable harm, noting that facility conditions may change during the waiting period.

The ruling bars enforcement of both the Jan. 8 directive and a Feb. 2 memorandum that reaffirmed it while the case proceeds in federal court.